How would you build an attack of opportunity based character?

[Saintheart]

Quick question because I don't 3.0 dumpster dive often, Weapon Master requires Expertise and Whirlwind Attack Combat Expertise, those are the same feat correct? As far as I can tell they have identical functions, but not completely sure....

That's how Expertise is commonly ruled - as Combat Expertise. I can't find a specific RAW reference to it that says it was specifically updated, though - even Wizards own rules reference doesn't say it was officially replaced which does mean the 3.0 option technically still exists as its own standalone feat.

[liquidformat]

That's how Expertise is commonly ruled - as Combat Expertise. I can't find a specific RAW reference to it that says it was specifically updated, though - even Wizards own rules reference doesn't say it was officially replaced which does mean the 3.0 option technically still exists as its own standalone feat.

Yeah that was what I was seeing with my minor rules-fu, though the fact that they are identical does lay credence to them being the same feat. I think a dm ruling they were two different feats would be enough for me to respectfully quit and avoid said dm in the future.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Yeah that was what I was seeing with my minor rules-fu, though the fact that they are identical does lay credence to them being the same feat. I think a dm ruling they were two different feats would be enough for me to respectfully quit and avoid said dm in the future.

It would be amusing to create a defensive build based on taking both, though. Probably not very effective, but amusing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Opportunity Power, on the other hand, is pretty much useless. The number of offensive powers that can be used with it is pitiful, and most of them belong to non-psychic warriors -- who are the only ones who'll actually want to get into melee. Not to mention the dearth of psionic foci to pull it off and the downsides to trying to become focused in combat.

Actually, looking through the list of touch powers, the only time I'd ever, ever use this feat is if it's paired with hostile empathic transfer to deal 50+ damage in exchange for 50+ healing. Granted, that's a really nice combo, but that's a lot of effort, energy, and resources to heal on an AoO.

[ShurikVch]

Actually, looking through the list of touch powers, the only time I'd ever, ever use this feat is if it's paired with hostile empathic transfer to deal 50+ damage in exchange for 50+ healing. Granted, that's a really nice combo, but that's a lot of effort, energy, and resources to heal on an AoO.

And what about the Fuse Flesh?

[Heliomance]

WotC doesn't capitalize actions in sentences. Whirlwind Attack is capitalized which means it isn't being addressed as the action itself. As i mentioned above, Ranged Precision was the first example off the top of my head to show a comparison. The language of Ki Whirlwind makes inferring the unique nature of Whirlwind Attack very easy. Especially as they use the action category rather than the specific action taken with that same reference to Whirlwind Attack. A full attack action is a full-round action, but a full-round action isn't necessarily a full attack action. Because of this, the specificity of the "standard action" in the description comes into question. You don't generally refer to a square as a rectangle do you?

A full-attack action is *normally* a full-round action. It can be modified to use a different action without stopping being a full attack. If a hypothetical ability said "you may make a full attack action as a standard action", it wouldn't magically become an attack action. It would still be a full attack action that only took a standard action.

Your point about the capitalisation doesn't hold any water. First of all, assigning meaning to whether or not an ability name is capitalised would require WotC to have far more rigorous levels of proofreading and consistency in their copy than they actually do. Secondly, Whirlwind Attack is most likely capitalised because it's a feat, and I believe those are mostly capitalised (but see previous point about expecting consistency from WotC)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And what about the Fuse Flesh?

That would require being a psion in melee combat, which is a hard no. Avoid that at all costs.

[ShurikVch]

That would require being a psion in melee combat, which is a hard no. Avoid that at all costs.

Mantled Warrior - Pain and Suffering 6

[Darg]

A full-attack action is *normally* a full-round action. It can be modified to use a different action without stopping being a full attack. If a hypothetical ability said "you may make a full attack action as a standard action", it wouldn't magically become an attack action. It would still be a full attack action that only took a standard action.

Your point about the capitalisation doesn't hold any water. First of all, assigning meaning to whether or not an ability name is capitalised would require WotC to have far more rigorous levels of proofreading and consistency in their copy than they actually do. Secondly, Whirlwind Attack is most likely capitalised because it's a feat, and I believe those are mostly capitalised (but see previous point about expecting consistency from WotC)

It still doesn't change the fact that Whirlwind attack is not an action itself. Saying a whirlwind attack is a full-round action means it takes 2 full-rounds to attack anything. You make a full attack action and then choose to give up your normal attacks for the benefit of Whirlwind Attack. It's in the description of the feat. If such verbiage is its own action, then every ability requires it's own action to be used.

Using the same verbiage, a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action would take any standard action; give up any normal attacks as part of that action; and apply the benefit of Whirlwind Attack. I really want to know where it says that Whirlwind Attack is its own action (if not a free action). It has consequences for tactical feats if so.

[Heliomance]

It still doesn't change the fact that Whirlwind attack is not an action itself. Saying a whirlwind attack is a full-round action means it takes 2 full-rounds to attack anything. You make a full attack action and then choose to give up your normal attacks for the benefit of Whirlwind Attack. It's in the description of the feat. If such verbiage is its own action, then every ability requires it's own action to be used.

Using the same verbiage, a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action would take any standard action; give up any normal attacks as part of that action; and apply the benefit of Whirlwind Attack. I really want to know where it says that Whirlwind Attack is its own action (if not a free action). It has consequences for tactical feats if so.

Whirlwind Attack is a modified full attack action. Ki Whirlwind allows you to do it as a standard action instead of a full round action. It's still a modified full attack action, not a modified attack action.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Mantled Warrior - Pain and Suffering 6

Okay, that's pretty nice, although it's still really, really, really expensive in terms of resources spent, especially since it's useless on most enemies you'll be fighting in melee (with their huge Con scores and Fort saves, or anything with Quickened, Stilled/Silent, contingent, Su, Ps, or Sp abilities). Better than buffing enemies with the hammer power, I guess.

[Darg]

Whirlwind Attack is a modified full attack action. Ki Whirlwind allows you to do it as a standard action instead of a full round action. It's still a modified full attack action, not a modified attack action.

Whirlwind Attack exchanges attacks in a full attack action. It isn't a full attack action. It isn’t even an action. Nothing in its description states it replaces or is an action. Consistency requires Ki Whirlwind Attack allow you to exchange attacks. If as you say Ki Whirlwind Attack is simply a standard action, it would do nothing as you don't have attacks to give up.

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

With Ki Whirlwind that becomes:

When you use "a standard action," you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

The quotation is verbatim of Ki Whirlwind. Or you can use the attack action. Full attack is to full-round as attack is to standard.

[Heliomance]

No, it becomes

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. A weapon master of 9th level or higher can [make this special full attack] as a standard action rather than a full-round action. Only one whirlwind attack can be made per round.

[liquidformat]

No, it becomes

I think Heliomance's interpretation is correct, and frankly it seems like you really have to reach and take things out of context to be getting Darg's, not to mention Darg's interpretation is quite dysfunctional and from my understanding of the rules if your interpretation is dysfunctional and wouldn't work it is normally an incorrect interpretation...

[Darg]

No, it becomes

Where is the evidence that Whirlwind Attack is an action? It's worded as a passive benefit. I've already stated how it should work and the description speaks for itself. It's really simple. Whirlwind Attack is not an action and simply claiming it is isn't going to magically make it any different. It replaces attacks, not the action.

Ki Whirlwind allows you to use a standard action to make a Whirlwind attack. As it used the action type to describe the action a Whirlwind Attack is a part of, syntax requires "standard action" to be describing the action type and not the specific action taken. If Whirlwind Attack is an action, syntax requires it to have been declared as such in context. Lacking that context as it is, the structure of the sentence supports the opposite.

When someone asks you what breed your purebred dog is, you don't respond with "dog" do you?

I think Heliomance's interpretation is correct, and frankly it seems like you really have to reach and take things out of context to be getting Darg's, not to mention Darg's interpretation is quite dysfunctional and from my understanding of the rules if your interpretation is dysfunctional and wouldn't work it is normally an incorrect interpretation...

Except I've been arguing in context the entire time... where as I've been taking the evidence literally, you have to make an assumption for Whirlwind Attack to be its own action.

[AnimeTheCat]

Whirlwind Attack exchanges attacks in a full attack action. It isn't a full attack action. It isn’t even an action. Nothing in its description states it replaces or is an action. Consistency requires Ki Whirlwind Attack allow you to exchange attacks. If as you say Ki Whirlwind Attack is simply a standard action, it would do nothing as you don't have attacks to give up.

Where is the evidence that Whirlwind Attack is an action? It's worded as a passive benefit. I've already stated how it should work and the description speaks for itself. It's really simple. Whirlwind Attack is not an action and simply claiming it is isn't going to magically make it any different. It replaces attacks, not the action.

Ki Whirlwind allows you to use a standard action to make a Whirlwind attack. As it used the action type to describe the action a Whirlwind Attack is a part of, syntax requires "standard action" to be describing the action type and not the specific action taken. If Whirlwind Attack is an action, syntax requires it to have been declared as such in context. Lacking that context as it is, the structure of the sentence supports the opposite.

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense, but how is what you're saying at all different from what Heliomance is saying? You're saying that it takes a standard action to use Whirlwind Attack if you are using Ki Whirlwind, and Heliomance is saying... "A weapon master of 9th level or higher can [make this special full attack] as a standard action rather than a full-round action."

Where is the disagreement here?

[OGDojo]

Depending on how your DM does his campaigns and what you have access to.
if you can use Pathfinder, i would suggest looking at the Warder from Path of War, Specifically the Eternal Guardian abilities. (in path of war extended)
you can then take the great reach bracers and make them a swift action to activate (it costs a little more but definately worth it) with increases your Base reach to 15 feet then you can take a reach weapon and have an even larger radius of threatened area.

Warder gives you combat reflexes except that you can use your Int modifier instead of your Dex for determining the number of attacks of opportunity you get in a round. you can also take a few feats to do some really cool things with attacks of opportunity, theres also alot of things in Dragon Magazine 340 specifically for Attacks of opportunity. On top of that warder gets access to a stance that treats its threatened area as difficult terrain meaning enemies cannot charge or take a 5 ft step as a free action. giving you more attacks of opportunity. theres also a feat called "stand Still" which makes it so that when you take an attack of opportunity you can Stop an opponents movement and end their move action. meaning they cant escape as long as you have attacks of opportunity

The other option is Knight.
Knight is an underrated class, it gets some cool things like the "threatened area becomes difficult terrain" as a class feature, but you would still have to find a way to get attacks of opportunity (just take combat reflexes) but it would have to be a dex build. and you would take alot of the same things that the warder build has, great reach bracers, stand still feat, dragon magazine feats, those types of things.

Having a reach weapon helps with threat range, i know in pathfinder it doubles your range (making it 30 ft with the great reach bracers) i dont remember how they work in 3.5. but even if its only an extra 5 feet thats still a 20 ft reach that becomes your territory. as long as your threat range is large and your dex is high enough to give you several attacks of opportunity in a round you can get upwards of 6 attacks in a round even without using your standard and move actions to make attacks.

I guess in short, Yes building an attack of opportunity build is DEFINATELY worth it as long as you do what you can to not just attack people in your threatened area but lock them into your threatened area and control who lives and dies in your area.
Oh and recently i was told about a combat feat called "Combat Patrol" that increases your threatened range by 5 feet for every 5 of base attack bonus.

[Darg]

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense, but how is what you're saying at all different from what Heliomance is saying? You're saying that it takes a standard action to use Whirlwind Attack if you are using Ki Whirlwind, and Heliomance is saying... "A weapon master of 9th level or higher can [make this special full attack] as a standard action rather than a full-round action."

Where is the disagreement here?

The disagreement is how it is performed. Whirlwind Attack simply allows you to change an action being taken. The others say it is its own special action like the dual strike feat or shield slam when you make a special full-round action. One allows you benefit from feats with action limitations such as spring attack and the other not so much. I argue that Ki Whirlwind changes a standard action into a Whirlwind attack while the other argues that Ki Whirlwind is the standard action. I prefer the interpretation that keeps the class feature consistent with how the feat functions rather than changing the function of the feat to fit the interpretation of the class feature.

[rel]

Ki Whirlwind is not an attack action; it’s a standard action. It can’t be used with spring attack, which requires an attack action.

If your DM rules this way use flyby attack. It let's you take a standard action during your move.

[Heliomance]

The disagreement is how it is performed. Whirlwind Attack simply allows you to change an action being taken. The others say it is its own special action like the dual strike feat or shield slam when you make a special full-round action. One allows you benefit from feats with action limitations such as spring attack and the other not so much. I argue that Ki Whirlwind changes a standard action into a Whirlwind attack while the other argues that Ki Whirlwind is the standard action. I prefer the interpretation that keeps the class feature consistent with how the feat functions rather than changing the function of the feat to fit the interpretation of the class feature.

No, that's not what we're arguing at all. Whirlwind Attack modifies a full attack so that, instead of making your normal iterative attacks, you make one attack at every target in range. Ki Whirlwind further modifies the same full attack so that, instead of taking a full-round action, it only takes a standard action. It's still modifying the exact same full attack. Your interpretation is, frankly, nonsense - there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that it suddenly becomes a standard attack action. Full-attack is not synonymous with full-round action, just like moving your speed is not synonymous with move action. There are abilities that let you move your speed without using a move action; in the same way, Ki Whirlwind lets you make a full attack with only a standard action, so long as it's modified with Whirlwind Attack.

[liquidformat]

The disagreement is how it is performed. Whirlwind Attack simply allows you to change an action being taken. The others say it is its own special action like the dual strike feat or shield slam when you make a special full-round action. One allows you benefit from feats with action limitations such as spring attack and the other not so much. I argue that Ki Whirlwind changes a standard action into a Whirlwind attack while the other argues that Ki Whirlwind is the standard action. I prefer the interpretation that keeps the class feature consistent with how the feat functions rather than changing the function of the feat to fit the interpretation of the class feature.

I am with Heliomance and your earlier comment on this, your interpretation of Ki Whirlwind changing a standard action into a whirlwind attack does not make sense and I don't think it would work.

[Darg]

Ki Whirlwind further modifies the same full attack so that, instead of taking a full-round action, it only takes a standard action.

The problem with this is that it isn't what it says at all. It says you "can make a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action." Whirlwind Attack isn't a full attack. Because of this, Ki Whirlwind cannot modify a full attack to be a standard action as Whirlwind requires you to declare a full attack action prior to using it. This means that if Ki Whirlwind turns Whirlwind Attack into a standard action, it can only ever be prior to your move action as you can't take a full attack action without both your actions available.

Full-attack is not synonymous with full-round action

How many times have I said the same thing in this thread? Whirlwind Attack Requires you to take the Full Attack Action to even function. This means you can't use it on a pounce as that is a charge action. So it isn't simply a different kind of full attack. If it could be used with pounce, spring attack could also be used as part of a charge as that requires the attack action. Actually, if that is the case then spring attack could be used with any action that gives you a single attack. Making a full attack is not synonymous with full attack action.

[Heliomance]

"making a Whirlwind Attack" is very clearly intended to be interpreted as "making a full attack action modified by the Whirlwind Attack feat". I will concede that it's sloppy wording and could definitely have been phrased better, but your interpretation is far more of a stretch than mine. By strictest RAW, I suppose that Ki Whirlwind would be simply non-functional, as it would modify the feat to require a standard action to activate rather than a non-action, meaning that you then wouldn't have a full round action left to make a full attack with. That is, however, quite evidently nonsense.

My interpretation simply requires the author to have been using a slightly imprecise shorthand. Your interpretation involves somehow pulling an attack action out of nowhere and claiming that because you're using a standard action this must be an attack action.

[Darg]

"making a Whirlwind Attack" is very clearly intended to be interpreted as "making a full attack action modified by the Whirlwind Attack feat". I will concede that it's sloppy wording and could definitely have been phrased better, but your interpretation is far more of a stretch than mine. By strictest RAW, I suppose that Ki Whirlwind would be simply non-functional, as it would modify the feat to require a standard action to activate rather than a non-action, meaning that you then wouldn't have a full round action left to make a full attack with. That is, however, quite evidently nonsense.

My interpretation simply requires the author to have been using a slightly imprecise shorthand. Your interpretation involves somehow pulling an attack action out of nowhere and claiming that because you're using a standard action this must be an attack action.

Strictest RAW would be that Ki Whirlwind simply modifies a standard action. Simple, easy. My interpretation only requires the understanding that Whirlwind Attack is not an action. Your interpretation requires changing the entire function of a feat.

The attack action came from the action type/action dichotomy. I thought it was a stricter interpretation of the class feature rather than having Whirlwind Attack usable with any standard action. So no, it wasn't "out of nowhere" as I have mentioned the reasoning at least 3 times in this thread.

[liquidformat]

Strictest RAW would be that Ki Whirlwind simply modifies a standard action. Simple, easy. My interpretation only requires the understanding that Whirlwind Attack is not an action. Your interpretation requires changing the entire function of a feat.

The attack action came from the action type/action dichotomy. I thought it was a stricter interpretation of the class feature rather than having Whirlwind Attack usable with any standard action. So no, it wasn't "out of nowhere" as I have mentioned the reasoning at least 3 times in this thread.

The issue with your interpretation which I still think you have not answered is how does your interpretation function, do you believe that your interpretation still allows you to attack every target within reach?

As far as I can tell from the way you have described this the answer is no ki whirlwind attack breaks and doesn't do anything and you are getting a class feature that does nothing by design...

[Darg]

The issue with your interpretation which I still think you have not answered is how does your interpretation function, do you believe that your interpretation still allows you to attack every target within reach?

As far as I can tell from the way you have described this the answer is no ki whirlwind attack breaks and doesn't do anything and you are getting a class feature that does nothing by design...

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

With Ki Whirlwind that becomes:

When you use "a standard action," you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

Whirlwind Attack is not an action and instead uses an action as a "host" for its effect. Instead of the full attack action "host," Ki Whirlwind changes the "host" to a standard action that must have an attack to give up. Whirlwind Attack changes the host action into a "whirlwind attack," regardless of what action it is. So yes, you still "make a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action rather than a full-round action."

The interpretation that turns a feat requiring an action in progress to activate into it's own action simply doesn't make sense. Saying Whirlwind Attack is its own special full-round action runs contrary to its own description, and I have yet to come across any evidence that even supports that theory. Tell me which parts are hard to understand and maybe I can elaborate in another way.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Whirlwind Attack is not an action and instead uses an action as a "host" for its effect. Instead of the full attack action "host," Ki Whirlwind changes the "host" to a standard action that must have an attack to give up. Whirlwind Attack changes the host action into a "whirlwind attack," regardless of what action it is. So yes, you still "make a Whirlwind Attack as a standard action rather than a full-round action."

The interpretation that turns a feat requiring an action in progress to activate into it's own action simply doesn't make sense. Saying Whirlwind Attack is its own special full-round action runs contrary to its own description, and I have yet to come across any evidence that even supports that theory. Tell me which parts are hard to understand and maybe I can elaborate in another way.

Even if Ki Whirlwind changes the "host action" to a standard action, your interpretation runs into problems. Ki Whirlwind doesn't specify what kind of standard action is now the "host action". It's not a specific action, because no specific action is mentioned. So if it's not a specific action, does that mean you can modify any sort of standard action with Ki Whirlwind, even the ones that don't involve attacks? Can I cast fireball and give up the attacks (all zero of them) to attack all creatures in reach, still getting my fireball because I'm not giving up the things that aren't attacks? I don't think that's what's supposed to happen.

In the end, your "host action" line of thinking results in Ki Whirlwind turning Whirlwind Attack into a special standard action. In practice, that ends up being very similar to our reading of a modified full attack action performed as a standard action. However, in the absence of a specific action, the strict RAW reading of Ki Whirlwind either results in an error (the action is undefined, therefore the ability doesn't work), or a hot mess of abuse (every standard action is now a whirlwind attack).

[Ramza00]

Try to get your DM to mix 3.5 with Pathfinder / DSP content and do a Warder build with its zone of nope. And as your main weapon use a big hammer with reach and "smash" with things like Vital Strike / Seize the Opportunity (which allows AoO to be Vital Strikes)

That plus Large and in Charge Feat from Draconomicon (which is similar to Stand Still but is slightly superior, note with PF rules you only get +2 size bonus and not +4.)

[Darg]

Even if Ki Whirlwind changes the "host action" to a standard action, your interpretation runs into problems. Ki Whirlwind doesn't specify what kind of standard action is now the "host action". It's not a specific action, because no specific action is mentioned. So if it's not a specific action, does that mean you can modify any sort of standard action with Ki Whirlwind, even the ones that don't involve attacks? Can I cast fireball and give up the attacks (all zero of them) to attack all creatures in reach, still getting my fireball because I'm not giving up the things that aren't attacks? I don't think that's what's supposed to happen.

In the end, your "host action" line of thinking results in Ki Whirlwind turning Whirlwind Attack into a special standard action. In practice, that ends up being very similar to our reading of a modified full attack action performed as a standard action. However, in the absence of a specific action, the strict RAW reading of Ki Whirlwind either results in an error (the action is undefined, therefore the ability doesn't work), or a hot mess of abuse (every standard action is now a whirlwind attack).

Whirlwind Attack requires you to give up your attacks to benefit. There is no "error" to be had. I also gave my 1 to 1 comparison with attack and full attack with standard action and full-round action.

[Heliomance]

Whirlwind Attack requires you to give up your attacks to benefit. There is no "error" to be had. I also gave my 1 to 1 comparison with attack and full attack with standard action and full-round action.

Okay, so, what if you use your standard action to cast Scorching Ray? That has attack rolls.